trip, whip and twf

[Hypersmurf]

An additional question. By my understanding, you can take a 5-ft. step any time during your turn, even between attacks of a full attack. Could you trip someone 10 ft away with the whip, then step forward 5 ft. to get your improved trip bonus attack with the sickle?

I've always read 'immediately' to disallow it.

Is "wielding" defined in the rules somewhere?

I always took an answer from the 3E Main FAQ about Defending weapons to help me decide how 'fight this way' should be read.

A Defending weapon can be used to apply its bonus to AC by 'the wielder'. The question in the FAQ was about a Defending weapon held in the off-hand, with another weapon in the primary hand. The answer stated that the bonus could only be applied if the character took TWF penalties, whether or not they attacked with the weapon.

If this answer is accepted, it shows that what provokes the penalties is not the extra attack, but whether or not you are 'the wielder' of a second weapon in your off-hand.

If a player in my game wanted to threaten with both a longspear and armor spikes, I'd require them to take TWF penalties, or else pick one or the other with which to threaten.

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

In response to Len and Chorn

My bad. Full attack and 5' step is allowed but not cleave and 5' step.

 

[mvincent]

As Hyp explained, the wield issue is subject to interpretion. Check with your DM and/or use what works best for your group.

I personally chose the "wield doesn't require TWF'ing interpretation based on a recent (7/29/05) FAQ addition reading:
“A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach”This seems to imply that the writers view "wearing" or holding as synonymous with "wielding". This corresponds with several other instances from the core rules where they do the same thing. Most of the text for shield enhancements refer to a “wielder”, are there are several sentences like this "The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded."

However, Hyp's reference to the defending weapon answer in the 3.0 was an excellent counter-point (prompting me to review it more). However, this example seemed to refer more to weapon expertise than to a wielding definition. Also, the 3.0 FAQ later gives an example (p.40) of a combatant switching between weapons in the same round without any mention of TWF penalties, so ymmv.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If this answer is accepted, it shows that what provokes the penalties is not the extra attack, but whether or not you are 'the wielder' of a second weapon in your off-hand.

Or it could show that what provokes the penalties is "fighting this way" with the off-hand weapon, which means using it in combat so as to trigger its abilities.

It's pretty clear that in D&D, "to wield" a weapon and "to hold" a weapon are used interchangeably, with the defending weapon entry being a sole (or at least very rare) counter-example. And, IMO, what they meant in the defending weapon entry is that you don't get the defending bonus unless you are fighting with the weapon ... which is enough to trigger the "fight this way" clause in TWF and impose the penalties.

That's not what they said, no.

Question One, IMO, is a clear "yes."

Question Two is closer, and I mostly agree with Hypersmurf. If the opponent is within reach of the sickle, hack away. If, as someone asked, it would require a 5-foot step to reach him and take the attack, the word "immediately" seems to disallow it. Attacks of opportunity also say to resolve the attack "immediately," and I wouldn't allow someone to take a 5-foot step before an attack of opportunity. Obviously, there are differences -- the most important being that one is resolved on your turn, and one isn't -- but I think the intent is that the attack occur with nothing -- not even a 5-foot step -- in between the trip and the followup.

That said, I'd probably allow it, solely for the coolness factor, but keep an eye out for abuse.

Question Three is also close, and I agree with Hypersmurf that is hinges on what "fight this way" means, but not the way he says. I think it depends on whether "fight this way" means "attacks with two weapon in this round" or "takes an extra offhand attack with the weapon this round." I read it as the latter, so I'd answer "yes" to Question Three.

You do have to declare TWF (or not) before taking a single attack, but as with almost every combat bonus or penalty that lasts a full-round, whether you take the TWF penalty is voluntary, and dependant upon your desire for the TWF benefit (even if you don't end up using it). (C.f., Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and so on.) Simply holding ("wielding") a weapon is not enough to trigger the benefit of the feat, and so it's not enough to trigger the penalties.

 

[Zandel]

I can see the logic behind JW's reasoning and i'm in the position where i have to agree but it raises anouther interesting question:

You do have to declare TWF (or not) before taking a single attack

When do you make this declaration? For example if you start a battle by just moving with no attacks made (but assuming both weapons drawn) there is no declaration so what happens if you make an AOO/s between your first round and your second?
You can't make a declaration on how you want to attack before it's your turn because to do so could disadvantage you when other opponents change position but if you don't then do you take the TWF penalties or not?

I'd be inclined to say no because you didn't attack last turn and that the AOO/s would not effect your next round actions..What do the rest of you think? JW?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

When do you make this declaration? [as to whether you're using TWF]

At the same time as you make other, similar, declarations (e.g., Combat Expertise, Power Attack, fighting defensively): before your first attack of any given round. In most games (IME), once a character declares TWF, he's assumed to continue it through that combat unless he says otherwise (again, before making the first attack of his round).

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's pretty clear that in D&D, "to wield" a weapon and "to hold" a weapon are used interchangeably, with the defending weapon entry being a sole (or at least very rare) counter-example. And, IMO, what they meant in the defending weapon entry is that you don't get the defending bonus unless you are fighting with the weapon ... which is enough to trigger the "fight this way" clause in TWF and impose the penalties.

So do you get the Shield bonus for the Two-Weapon Defense feat if you are holding a whip and a sickle, but not taking TWF penalties?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So do you get the Shield bonus for the Two-Weapon Defense feat if you are holding a whip and a sickle, but not taking TWF penalties?

I don't see why not. You get it if you're holding a double-sword but not fighting two-handed (or even fighting at all), right?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't see why not. You get it if you're holding a double-sword but not fighting two-handed (or even fighting at all), right?

But aren't you, then, "using it in combat so as to trigger its abilities"?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But aren't you, then, "using it in combat so as to trigger its abilities"?

I was referring to the defending ability. In other words, "if you want the defending bonus, you have to accept TWF penalties, even if you don't use the associated benefits."

This isn't unusual ... if you want the benefit of the second weapon's ability to make extra, off-hand attacks, you have to accept TWF penalties, even if you don't use the benefit you've thus paid for.